AuthorTopic: The unthinkable has happened. Now what? (Read 8699 times)

Great job on the 3.8, but if want it to mean something, get a job with your degree and it will. If you want to go to a top law school, however, you almost always need a high LSAT score. The simple fact is that the LSAT is by far the most important factor, and if you have a high enough score, you can get into almost anywhere as long as you have a B average GPA. Sorry dude. Good luck. I think transfering after your first year is a decent idea.

I agree on the LSAT thing (both on it being important and almost impossible to get the elusive 180).

You should really see if you can take advantage of the Kaplan higher score guarantee (just to get the new materials for free) and do some hard cor prep on your own. If you can't do a practice test above a 160, you sure as hell aren't getting a 180 on the real deal.

It also isn't the end of the world if you go to a tier 2 school and transfer later or even graduate from it.

I'm going to get bashed for this, I know. I'm not going to give false hope or anything but I have to say it really bugs me when people say 'you have to have X score' to go here or there or wherever. There are lots of exceptions to chiasu. You can argue your case to a school, visit, sit in classes, write to a professor, write a compelling addendum, many people on this board raised their scores by more than two points, many schools take the higher score, and many (probably even top 30 schools) might take his first with more work experience and an amazing application. Yes, I've cited exceptions, but there are a TON of them all the same. I think if the applicant goes the extra mile to make an impression, it's entirely possible to overcome a low LSAT score. I'm an example of someone getting in massively against the odds and I know many others like me. I know everyone here's just trying to be helpful and realistic - and that I will be critiqued for being unrealistic - but what I am saying is true as well. If I were the OP I'd take a long hard look at my application, fly out to schools, talk to adcoms, sit in on classes, spend the time until I apply doing amazing things and really think about my addendums and personal statement so that they are unique.

I'm going to get bashed for this, I know. I'm not going to give false hope or anything but I have to say it really bugs me when people say 'you have to have X score' to go here or there or wherever. There are lots of exceptions to chiasu. You can argue your case to a school, visit, sit in classes, write to a professor, write a compelling addendum, many people on this board raised their scores by more than two points, many schools take the higher score, and many (probably even top 30 schools) might take his first with more work experience and an amazing application. Yes, I've cited exceptions, but there are a TON of them all the same. I think if the applicant goes the extra mile to make an impression, it's entirely possible to overcome a low LSAT score. I'm an example of someone getting in massively against the odds and I know many others like me. I know everyone here's just trying to be helpful and realistic - and that I will be critiqued for being unrealistic - but what I am saying is true as well. If I were the OP I'd take a long hard look at my application, fly out to schools, talk to adcoms, sit in on classes, spend the time until I apply doing amazing things and really think about my addendums and personal statement so that they are unique.

I think you are right to a certain extent, but the OP was adamant about going to a top 30 school. If you want to do that, you have to have a high LSAT. There is no way around that. If the OP is willing to go to a T2 or take the test again and hopefully score 170+, he can have a shot at T1's that take the best score or lower T1's that will take the 160 average with his high GPA.

SkullTatt

I see these posts a lot and this is the thought I am stuck with: Why would someone care so much about the specific number ranking ( and not look beyond that to the other assets of the school) but then in turn expect the schools to look beyond their LSAT numbers to discover the really cool person behind them???

AGREED. Law schools complain about US News rankings but then they reject people who don't meet numeric criteria. They have only themselves to blame.

You should really see if you can take advantage of the Kaplan higher score guarantee (just to get the new materials for free) and do some hard cor prep on your own. If you can't do a practice test above a 160, you sure as hell aren't getting a 180 on the real deal.

My suggestion... don't bother with Kaplan. I might get flamed for this, but it seems to me a course like Powerscore that uses real LSAT questions is better than homemade questions that may or may not be similar to the real thing. That is my general advice. Specifically, it doesn't appear Kaplan helped you out a whole lot.

Dork Nowitzki

"T30" seems a bit strange as a cutoff point for acceptable schools. I mean, UNC-CH is a T30, but it would make little sense to go there over (say) Lewis & Clark if one wanted to work in Portland, or Cardozo if NY, etc. It would be helpful to know if the OP knows where he/she wants to work.

Kaplan's biggest problem is not their homemade questions; it's their techniques. They suck. Advice like "Read Carefully" and "Attack the answer choices" isn't all that helpful to someone who wants to score above 150. Also, the LR section of the 2005 Kaplan LSAT book contains this gem: "Every Logical Reasoning stimulus contains an argument consisting of two elements: (1) conclusion (2) evidence (paraphrase)." This, of course, is not true in Resolve the Paradox and other question types that only contain sets of facts in the stimulus. Somehow, Kaplan manages to miss this.

gailrules

"T30" seems a bit strange as a cutoff point for acceptable schools. I mean, UNC-CH is a T30, but it would make little sense to go there over (say) Lewis & Clark if one wanted to work in Portland, or Cardozo if NY, etc. It would be helpful to know if the OP knows where he/she wants to work.

Kaplan's biggest problem is not their homemade questions; it's their techniques. They suck. Advice like "Read Carefully" and "Attack the answer choices" isn't all that helpful to someone who wants to score above 150. Also, the LR section of the 2005 Kaplan LSAT book contains this gem: "Every Logical Reasoning stimulus contains an argument consisting of two elements: (1) conclusion (2) evidence (paraphrase)." This, of course, is not true in Resolve the Paradox and other question types that only contain sets of facts in the stimulus. Somehow, Kaplan manages to miss this.

This poster is right on. I did Kaplan for the June 2005 LSAT and they did Jack Skwat for me. I ended up scoring lower on the June test than I did on my last diagnostic (but the were very nice about giving me y $$$ back, I will say that). I am POSITIVE that the reason I didn't do as well as I'd like was because I never really mastered formal logic, and Kaplan doesn't adequately drill you on that the way they should. They kinda touch on it in the 1st or 2nd class and then go onto their crappy techniques. ("See, Think, Do" What is this, 2nd grade???)

This time around, I'm shelling out the $$$ for a PowerScore private tutor. I want to work with someone who will help me with the things I need help with, and give me some standardized BS. I think you should consider it if you have your heart set on a T30.

Also, instead of shooting for a T30, maybe you should just work your hardest and try for your personal best. I think that if it's T30 or nothing, you're going into law for all the wrong reasons.